Why I'm a Libertarian

[Steff]

In order to give people a little more insight why my political beliefs run so deep:

Among libertarians, it's traditional to share how and when you discovered you were a libertarian. My own awareness goes back quite a few years. But, the occasion of my son's birth re-invigorated a political activism that had become dormant during my years in the college.

I had always thought of myself as a big and strong man. Able to take care of myself in our often violent and unjust world. But Alex, when he was born, was so small and innocent. He deserved better than what I got. This reminded me that I deserved better too. That we all deserved better. So I got back involved in politics.

My choices regarding political activity weren't ideal. Romans 13 says that government is established by God to be a terror to evil and to praise those who do good. This is a clear endorsement of limited government--one that uses its coercive force only to prosecute evil-doers. A government that only uses encouragement to promote good-doing. The Libertarian Party comes close to, but misses the mark set out by Romans 13 because it declares itself neutral on moral issues.

First of all, moral neutrality is simply impossible. Government officials, in their words and in the example of their lives, inevitably display what behavior is exemplary and what behavior is, by contrast, unacceptable. There's a difference between not using the coercive powers of the state to force people to be moral, and using one's legitimate economic and social abilities to try to persuade others to be moral. Instead of saying that the Libertarian Party does not take positions on moral issues, it should affirm that virtue is only possible in a free society, that a free society best induces virtuous behavior, and that the candidates of the Libertarian Party will, if elected, promote virtue through non-coercive means.

And, just as government officials are to encourage good-doing through personal example and praise, we--as members of society--in our roles as parents and as teachers, as employers and as landlords, as friends and as benefactors, in all of our private relations with others, we too are to encourage moral behavior.

Because we are commanded to love one another, we cannot be morally neutral. But because we respect the limits on our authority, and we trust in God's plan of salvation, we do not violently intervene into the lives of others.

There's another problem with "libertarianism." This isn't a problem with the Libertarian Party, or with what we understand to be the meaning of the word libertarianism. It's a problem with a connotation that some other people ascribe to the word. The problem is that, for other some people, libertarianism implies irresponsible freedom. Some people think libertarianism means a "devil-may-care" attitude. "Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die." And, "In the long run, we are all dead."

For some of these people, this irresponsible freedom means that each person is to be immunized from the consequences of his decisions. This view leads to all kinds of interventions--to re-distribution of the wealth, for example, so that those who make poor choices do not suffer as a consequence of their poor choices. When you think about it, this is exactly the opposite of libertarianism as understood by the Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party is absolutely against redistribution of the wealth. Indeed, the Libertarian Party has worked to remove the connotation of irresponsible freedom from the word libertarianism. But, to some extent, the connotation is still there, and we have to continue to rehabilitate the word.

To the Christian, the world is so arranged as to bring each person to salvation. Realizing the consequences of one's choices is viewed as part of this process, as an education. Hopefully, a person making poor choices, by suffering the consequences, will come to be motivated to change. We call this kind of motivation "fear of damnation."

A person who turns away from bad choices, and starts to make good choices, will see that good choices lead to benefits, and step up to being motivated by "promise of reward." Ultimately, we hope that the person will step up to being motivated by "love of God."

But, some people mistakenly think that libertarians want to cut-short this educational process. For example, that libertarians would want to redistribute the wealth, so people who make poor decisions don't suffer as a consequence. But why should sinners repent if there is no punishment for poor decisions and no reward for good decisions?

The most pure motivation is "love of God." A martyr accepts torture and death because of "love of God." But few people start out with this motivation. They need reward and punishment.

And, besides, how do we know what is God's will unless we observe the feedback we receive. God's will is revealed to us through the laws of nature and history. It is wrong for the government to try to protect us from, and thus undermine the laws of nature and history. Tradition can be and often is a good source of knowledge about what is most conducive to human happiness. And it is altogether proper for us to transmit the values we have received from the past, and further developed ourselves, to the next generation. But it is also good for the members of the next generation to question these values, to test them out, and, ultimately, to adopt them for themselves not because we taught them but because they choose them.

The Greek philosopher Aristotle described this phenomenon as "human flourishing." And Thomas Jefferson described it as "the pursuit of happiness." As long as the government keeps the peace, which is its legitimate function, we will choose virtue. We don't need the government to uphold moral behavior. That which works, doesn't need to be subsidized.

We might--actually I should say--we will make mistakes, but as long as we suffer or benefit from our choices, then we will come to discover what is consistent with human happiness.

Alanis Morrisette puts the idea this way:

"You live, you learn.

You laugh, you learn.

You cry, you learn."

This is the first story you find in the Bible. Adam and Eve, in the Garden, choosing between the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge. Some people think it was unfair. What was God thinking? Didn't he know that man would make the wrong decision? Was giving man free will some kind of Cosmic April Fools Day? No, it wasn't. It was part of God's plan of salvation. God made man in his image. He made us moral creatures, with the God-like power to choose between right and wrong. Thus, the Old Testament describes his relation to us with the passage "Deep calleth unto deep." And, Jesus once responded to a question concerning his own divinity, "Is it not written that we are all (little "g") gods?"

But how can we beneficially use this God-like power to choose, if we are protected from the consequences of our choices? Without feedback, we will merely pursue the objects of our prejudice, we will not discover what is God's will.

The Zulu tribe of Africa describes humanness with the term "buntu." It means that man is a self-defining value. But, this self-definition, this choice, does not occur in a vacuum. It occurs in the context of nature and society.

It is natural and good that we are not free of the consequences of our choices. God, in his mercy, gives us the feedback we need in order to choose well.

To the Christian, we are both individuals with rights endowed by the Creator, and members of society--where society is understood as including government, but as being more than government. Society includes family, economic, church and civic institutions. And, government itself is seen as consisting of both local and national components.

Properly understood, the Christian position is that it should be for us, privately, using the advantages that are rightfully ours, to try to encourage moral behavior in others. It is not for us, through the coercive powers of government, to try to legislate morality. This is such an important point, let me refer to a Bible verse. In 2 Thessalonian, Paul writes,

"For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread. But ye brethren, be not weary in well doing. And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother."

It's with lovingkindness, not coercive force, that we are to uphold each other.

And what of the person who will not accept admonition? For this person we are to bear in mind the story of the prodigal son. Everybody knows that this parable teaches us to joyfully accept the repentant sinner. But it also teaches us to trust in God for the salvation of those whom we love who reject our good counsel. The father who celebrated his son's return, is the same father who waited patiently for that return.

And, because I suspect that there are some who question whether it was fair for the father to accept back the prodigal son, when his other son had remained faithful, let me tell you "the rest of the story." When the faithful son brought the question of fairness to his father's attention, the father told him not to worry. That the father knew that the prodigal son had already spent his inheritance, and that all of the father's wealth would still be the faithful son's.

This story not only demonstrates that we are to joyfully accept the repentant sinner, and that we are to trust in God for the salvation of those who are wayward, it demonstrates that God is all just as well as all merciful.

[Cerran]

Excellent example of how libertarianism and the bible go hand in hand. Thanks for sharing.

[Dad Ernie]

Greetings,

Political Libertarianism is the Devil's tool to make fence stradlers. Now if you want to speak of the "liberty we have in Christ", that is another story, but to associate scripture with Libertarianism goes against everything that is written in the Word of God.

You must read what they stand for, that is, their platform, and then compare what it says with what the scriptures say.

Blessings,

Dad Ernie

[Work in Progress]

Dad Ernie, I totally disagree and am somewhat offended.

You must read what they stand for, that is, their platform, and then compare what it says with what the scriptures say.

I have to ask - did you even read the original post? Are you calling the poster a liar?

The poster made some excellent points. Can you Biblically refute them, or just make a blanket statement that it's the "tool of Satan"?

Geesh.

[nagwalk]

Steff, thank you so much for your clear, concise description of Christian Libertarianism.

I have been looking for such a statement for a while.

I am a NACI north american canadian indian. I was invited to a world Libertarian conference in London Ontario a few Years ago.

I participated on a panel discussing North American Indian Soverienty, which as you know is like throwing gasoline on a camp fire to a bunch of Libertarians.

I made the statement. "I did not put my hand in your pocket, some pervert (government) did."

We then went on to discuss how we could yank my displaced hand out of their pockets.

Are there any links that would help me continue to learn Libertarianism from a Christain perspective?

Thank you

[Trinity]

I am not in favor of you politcal party but thanks for sharing, hey know i know why you stand with them, its not going to affect me other then how i see you

[Leonard]

The pro-abortion stance of the Libertarians is mainly what made me leave the party.

I registered as a Whig, but found I was really just a Whig In Name Only.

I am now registered with the Constitution Party...the only party with a SPECIFICALLY Christian and biblical platform.

[Work in Progress]

The pro-abortion stance of the Libertarians is mainly what made me leave the party.

Leonard, that is not my understanding of the parties' platform on that at all. I do not believe them to be pro-abortion. Could be wrong, but I've spoken to Libertarians about this issue. So, either they are wrong about their party, or they are lying. I think it's neither.

[dgolvach]

I hope the Libertarian party really goes far in the next election cycle.

Howard Dean

DNC chairman

[RustyAngeL]

While I don't agree with your political views I thank you for being so up front. That is what makes America so wonderful, the gift of believing as you wish. Good post Steff